Recommended Posts

I've been looking through the forums and reading quite a few great suggestions (IMNSHO), but they're so scattered and in seemingly unrelated threads that they are hard to follow. I'll try and summarize some of them here, and please add more. I'll try and email Jeremy to request that he periodically look through this thread for bugs to fix, and hopefully suggestions to implement, for the Benchmarking section.

My issues/favorites so far:

1) BUG. Fix the Terraserver links from the benchmark data pages. (I entered this in the GC.com forum on 9/23 and haven't even seen a response to my posting, much less a fix.)

2) SUGGESTION: change the way Benchmarks are logged. Make two fields: Status and Condition. Status would indicate Found/Not Found/Note, and Condition would be Good/Poor/Confirmed Destroyed (or similar).

There's my starting list. What else can be done to improve the Benchmarking section?

[This message was edited by Tennessee Geocacher on October 22, 2003 at 06:05 AM.]

Share this post

Link to post

I've never found a mark of my own, of course (and that's not just a line from my signature. I really haven't found any marks.) but I've seen a lot of the same requests show up here from time to time. I'll just dump them here since it looks like a good place for them:

Pocket Queries, of course. Apparently bmgpx doesn't work for everybody. Some people want logs in their GPX files, for example.

Newer data, too. It sucks to find a mark that bmgpx has put into your GPX file, only to discover that you can't log the find because it hasn't made it to geocaching.com yet.

A prominent link to the benchmark section from the main page is another one that's been requested a lot.

Share this post

Link to post

Also, I'm not entirely happy with the manipulation (resizing and/or recompression) of photos on either the GC site or the BM site. This is not acceptable. If thumbnails are needed for a gallery or some such other purpose, create them as necessary but leave the cache log and BM log photos alone! They are an integral part of our logs and as such should be treated with the same degree of respect and integrity. I can't stress this more.

Cheers ...

~Rich in NEPA~

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

Share this post

Link to post

1) What's the problem? Perhaps the resize is only done if the photo exceeds some limits. Perhaps the limits need to be better stated?

The problem is that any resizing and subsequent JPEG compression during saving degrades the image quality. The degradation is cumulative. You may not notice it, but I do. They're my images and I prefer not to have them modified. What's next? Rearranging the words and editing the text of our cache logs to suit someone's formatting whims?!

quote:

2) Be aware that IE6 will auto-resize images.

I have no control over what somebody does to the images when they're downloaded to their computer for viewing. I'm well aware of the recommended sizes and formats for Web images and I make every attempt to be considerate of the fact that most people don't have large high-resolution computer displays or fast broadband connections. Therefore I'm already voluntarily resizing my photos to around 640x480 pixels. The trouble for me was trying to stay under the original 100KB filesize limit. So now that the limit is lifted I should be able to take advantage of improved image quality, but this is not the case because now the website reduces them to 600x540 pixels and adds even more JPEG compression. (If the image is less than 600 pixels wide it is not resized but it is still recompressed and resaved.)

Maybe this is a difficult concept to comprehend but I consider my photos to be an integral part of my cache logs. I'm not interested in any photo gallery where images are displayed out of context, but if a gallery is deemed necessary then it should be a simple matter for the website to create smaller photos and thumbnails in a standard format for use with the gallery only. I see absolutely no reason to have cache log images modified.

I've also heard the argument that most people don't know how to resize and save their images. This is pure bunk. Anyone who can figure out how to use a GPS receiver to go Geocaching and then buys a 6 megapixel digital camera certainly has the capacity to learn this simple task as well. Every digital camera on the market comes with the software to resize and edit photos. Windows XP will resize images automatically for you. My 75-year old mother, who never touched a computer in her life until two years ago, knows how to resize photos and send them in her e-mails!

Cheers ...

~Rich in NEPA~

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

Share this post

Link to post

I would like to have it possible to add benchmarks to a watch list. If I don't find a mark but someone else comes along later and finds it, I would like to know about it. An example is JK0190. In this particular case, the data coordinates do not match the description, i.e, two different railroads.

1950 Surveyor

Share this post

Link to post

I pride myself in not finding a BM. I would much rather confirm a BM was wiped out by a railroad being abandonded and all tracks and signals removed. Or a road being relocated. Or read about a flood. Unfortunately, no credit is given for NOT FINDs, but more time was spent at a library researching old documents than in the field.

There really needs to be a major change in the paradigm used for logging benchmarks. Based on the concept of positive identification I am now logging missing/destroyed marks as "Found," but only as long as I can positively identify (beyond any reasonable doubt) that I've located the station itself. The "Destroyed" option needs to be removed immediately from the BM logging form, and a "Condition" field (with dropdown list or radio buttons) added for all "Found" logs. This field will indicate that the station is either "Good," "Poor," or "Destroyed." In most cases I would hesitate to mark a station as "Destroyed" until I could file an official recovery report to NGS and a determination was made by them and added to the datasheet. I'd go back and edit the BM log afterwards. (Also, once a station has been logged as "Destroyed" subsequent "finders" should not be allowed to log it as "Found." This will give the credit where it's due.) The "Not Found" option should remain as it is now—that is, the mark wasn't found, or if there is any question about its identity.

Cheers ...

~Rich in NEPA~

Rich and I are on the same page except I disagree with the not allowing subsequence finders to log a DESTROYED. It doesn't bother me to have someone confirm my findings, or, heaven forbid, an error!

1950 Surveyor

[This message was edited by Colorado Papa on October 06, 2003 at 01:55 PM.]

Share this post

Link to post

Rich and I are on the same page except I disagree with the not allowing subsequence finders to log a _DESTROYED_. It doesn't bother me to have someone confirm my findings, or, heaven forbid, an error!

CP, that's not the point. I'm as willing as you to have my work subjected to scrutiny and constructive criticism, and I'm certain to make plenty of mistakes.

The problem, however, is how do you reward the person who puts so much time and effort into proving that a station is missing/destroyed. Do you think it's proper for someone else to read your logs and based on your evidence submit a "Find" for this station? You do realize, of course, that's it's much harder to prove that a station doesn't exist than to locate one that does? I already have a few "Not Founds" where I've searched for stations and discovered an empty hole in the rock where the disk should be. I accept the fact that in these situations I have not been able to positively identify the station as the one in question. I'm sure there will be many others like this. There would be nothing preventing any another person from searching out a station mark that you or I have listed as missing/destroyed, and if they did find it (highly doubtable, since "positively identified" means just that) they are free to report their findings to NGS and contest the previous determination. I don't see where this is a problem. On the benchmarking site, remember, there would be no "Destroyed" logging option, only a place on a "Found" log to list the condition of the station as either Good, Poor, or Destroyed. The evidence should be sent to NGS and they will decide if the datasheet gets updated with the new classification.

Cheers ...

~Rich in NEPA~

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

Share this post

Link to post

The problem, however, is how do you reward the person who puts so much time and effort into proving that a station is missing/destroyed. Do you think it's proper for someone else to read your logs and based on your evidence submit a "Find" for this station?

Oh, is thing about no "finds after a destroyed" all about score keeping? In other words the first finder/destroyer gets the points? I'm fine with that.

I thought you were saying that no one could post their logs after a "destroyed" finding.

Now who gets the points in a contested status is completely different question. How someone can do a "find" baised in the "destroyed" evidence of another is beyond me. But I can see where one person finds and another says it's destroyed (for a landmark station it could easily happen) there's going to be some question who gets to claim the points. I'm not sure how to solve that. I'm not sure as it's a problem worth solving in terms of points.

Share this post

Link to post

But I can see where one person finds and another says it's destroyed (for a landmark station it could easily happen) there's going to be some question who gets to claim the points.

For many people benchmarking is like geocaching so points are always going to be an issue. And as long as benchmark logging follows the same model as geocaching, there's going to be the tendency to think in terms of actually finding something at the prescribed location. It might be easier to think of a benchmarking "find" as simply a "recovery," in the same sense that NGS defines it. A successful recovery of a destroyed station is still a "find" in the same sense as finding the disk itself. I think this is the part that's hard to grasp. In geocaching the proof of a find is signing the logbook, but in benchmarking the proof of a find is positive identification of the station, whether the mark exists or not. If the mark doesn't exist any longer, the burden of proof becomes much greater. (It's the logical equivalent of proving a negative.) However, in many cases there can be enough verifiable evidence to make the claim valid. (Who decides if there's enough evidence? NGS, of course, when you submit a recovery report.) We just need a system of benchmark logging that follows this model and not geocaching.

Cheers ...

~Rich in NEPA~

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

At these coordinates,I know from experience this could be way off though. But state this and the new condition.

Or after diligintly looking, like some of us do...........State that as the condition,and it would take someone with more experience to search the mark.Some I have gone back to several times with a metal detector and finally found.

So every Station,Benchmark,Nail,Rivet,Tower,Mast,Tank,Plaque,Reference Marks,Azimuths or Stone has a condition.

I even entered a wrong picture and a geocaher caught it and e-mailed me and I corrected it.

I think that honest people will make honest reports and their work will show it and there are always those whom take advantage of any situation.

I have pondered this point many times as to how to log, (WHAT I Found)......................

Share this post

Link to post

I had an additional thought, but it would take the cooperation of DaveD's office, and probably rebuilding the querys into the NGS database...

If there was a way to directly query a specific PID in the NGS database, the GC.com details page for a marker could be dynamically updated with the latest info in the NGS files. However, I haven't found any way to query the NGS data without using this form (ds_pid.prl) on their site. I guess it's really a lot to ask to have NGS recode their site just for GC.com's benefit...

Share this post

Link to post

quote: If there was a way to directly query a specific PID in the NGS database, the GC.com details page for a marker could be dynamically updated with the latest info in the NGS files. However, I haven't found any way to query the NGS data without using this form (ds_pid.prl) on their site. I guess it's really a lot to ask to have NGS recode their site just for GC.com's benefit...

The info in the geocaching.com database originally came from CD-ROMs, which NGS no longer distributes.

The same information is now available online, with annually-compiled files of datasheets for each county, supplemented by monthly releases of datasheets containing new information. (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/datasheet.prl)

So it seems an alternate approach would be to update the gc.com database using these archive files.

Implementation would not be trivial, or so it seems to me (a non-programmer) - probably involving a one-time download of about 3,000 county datasheet files and their migration to the gc.com database (to replace the current information, which is about three years old), followed by a regular maintenance program of monthly updates.

The files appear to be maintained on an FTP server, which I suppose would greatly simplify the transfer.

Share this post

Link to post

So it seems an alternate approach would be to update the gc.com database using these archive files.

Rather than update gc.com files, the gc.com PID datapage could contain everything except the description. Add a Detailed NGS Description radio button which would access the NGS datapage directly as a sub-window, just like we have in this particular case for Post A Reply.

After thought: Make it a larger window (90%?)with a PRINT option.

1950 Surveyor

Share this post

Link to post

Rather than update gc.com files, the gc.com PID datapage could contain everything except the description.......

That would be the way to get datasheets, pull the current one from NGS web site in real time. It's very easy to do, I do it on my web site (Sample). Not much sense in keeping a db of datasheets because they change frequently.

Problem is this web site would still need a database with PIDS, coordinates, etc. to generate the other things people want, like lists of benchmarks in a particular area.

Be nice if the NGS web site had a simple list of PIDS by state/whatever that you could work from, but they don't seem to have that option. Updating fifty states would be much simpler than 3,015 counties.

It would be a large undertaking to duplicate the NGS data and keep it current.

Share this post

Link to post

We've been working on new code to import the latest benchmark files. I think we just have a couple of issues with it before we can publish it to the site.

I'll look into the problems listed above. Fortunately we'll be moving to the new log a cache code for benchmarks, and plan to add additional fields that are recognized by the NGS. I have to add some additional code to bring a popup list of definitions for each log type.

I'll pin a topic to the forums when I'm ready to tweak the benchmark code.

Share this post

Link to post

quote:Originally posted by BeachBum22:Problem is this web site would still need a database with PIDS, coordinates, etc. to generate the other things people want, like lists of benchmarks in a particular area.

BeachBum22

No problem. The gc.com PID page would still be the same, only the BM description would be gone, replaced with the radio button.

There's a related bug: if you add a log entry to a BM (e.g., a find or a note), then delete that log entry, the BM will always show up in the list of BMs returned on the "List of items found" page for your account, even though you have no apparent association with that BM.

Share this post

Link to post

At the present, when searching for nearest geocaches in my area, the list of caches also includes red check marks to the left of the cache name to indicate that I have already found that cache.

When searching for the nearest benchmarks in my area, the list of benchmarks is several printed pages long, but there are presently no check marks to indicate that I have already found a listed benchmark.

This gets particularly confusing when attempting to download benchmark waypoints by lat/long for my home, lat/long for my station, and by my zip code. Some benchmarks appear redundantly in all three lists.

Would it be possible to code the benchmark section so that listed benchmarks that have been found by the user are indicated by a check mark? This would make downloading new benchmarks to search for much easier, as each waypoint wouldn't have to be cross-checked against a list of benchmarks that I've already located.

Thank you for your time and attention!

Keith M. McDonald

"Wreck Diver"

Share this post

Link to post

quote:The "Destroyed" option needs to be removed immediately from the BM logging form, and a "Condition" field (with dropdown list or radio buttons) added for all "Found" logs. This field will indicate that the station is either "Good," "Poor," or "Destroyed." In most cases I would hesitate to mark a station as "Destroyed" until I could file an official recovery report to NGS and a determination was made by them and added to the datasheet. I'd go back and edit the BM log afterwards. (Also, once a station has been logged as "Destroyed" subsequent "finders" should not be allowed to log it as "Found."

I would agree on principle. Unlike you, when I am convinced that something is destroyed, I mark it as 'not found' rather than as 'found'. I have used the 'destroyed' option extensively, but ONLY in order to mark the BMs that are already marked as destroyed or lost in the official history. I don't touch those that are officially described as 'ought to be considered destroyed', etc. If it's officially destroyed, it should be removed from the database, or at least be marked as such. If noone can do it, we should do it ourselves. However, we should not assume the authority to claim 'destroyed' somethign that was found when it was last checked officially, no matter how sure we are. That's not up to us.

Share this post

Link to post

At the present, when searching for nearest geocaches in my area, the list of caches also includes red check marks to the left of the cache name to indicate that I have already found that cache.

When searching for the nearest benchmarks in my area, the list of benchmarks is several printed pages long, but there are presently no check marks to indicate that I have already found a listed benchmark.

This gets particularly confusing when attempting to download benchmark waypoints by lat/long for my home, lat/long for my station, and by my zip code. Some benchmarks appear redundantly in all three lists.

Would it be possible to code the benchmark section so that listed benchmarks that have been found by the user are indicated by a check mark? This would make downloading new benchmarks to search for much easier, as each waypoint wouldn't have to be cross-checked against a list of benchmarks that I've already located.

Share this post

Link to post

On the www.geocaching/mark/ page, I would like to see To search for local benchmarks: include by state and the drop-down window for cities like it is with caches. Am planning a trip and I don't know exact zip codes or coordinates without going into a mapping program. But I do know what towns I will be passing through.

Share this post

Link to post

Here's another bug: I know of only two examples, but I suspect there are more, and there's bound to be an easy explanation...

Search for benchmark CS1770. Then click on the ''nearest benchmarks'' link and you'll see all the benchmarks within ten miles, but CS1770 is not in the list. It should be at the top of the list.

The same is true for CS1954.

How many more benchmarks are invisible in this type of search?

I discovered this while looking up PIDs I found in a short-range radial search on the NGS website.

This is because benchmarks with a "MARK NOT FOUND" in the official history do not show up on the initial search of benchmarks. If you click on "See all benchmarks for this query" at the top of the search result page, you will get these benchmarks marked with a skull to indicate that they have a "MARK NOT FOUND" in the official history. Note that the "MARK NOT FOUND" does not have to be the last history entry for this to happen. The last history could be "FOUND" but a previous one marked as "MARK NOT FOUND" will still cause this to happen. WHen I did this for CS1770, so many benchmarks came up with a skull that I didn't bother to count them all. Well over half, at least at the beginning.

Share this post

Link to post

I'd like to see more information in the benchmark section of My Cache Page. Currently it just shows the date, the PID, and a found/not found icon. If I want to check on a benchmark that I've already looked for, it's hard to remember the PID. Could we have additional fields that show the designation and type? And maybe the distance and direction from my home coordinates?

Share this post

Link to post

How about a Benchmarking Tab at the top left of the main page, along with Hide & Seek Cache, My Cache page, Disscuss Geocaching etc.... It will give us more exposure.<BR><BR>How about updated maps, like there are now for geocaching.

Share this post

Link to post

Here is anouther I just remembered, You should be able to search by Designation not just PID. Sometimes you are out hiking without GPS and come across a NGS marker but they don't have the PIDs stamped on them so it makes it hard to search for them to log.

Share this post

Link to post

One thing that I would like to see is the benchmarks that I've found highlighted like my finds on the cache search pages. IE: white = not found, grey = found (and of course, yellow = mine!). Right now, I'm the only one in my area who actively hunts benchmarks so I tend to look for found dates on the benchmark search pages and assume the finds to be mine. It's a simple method, but it works, for the most part, unless another cacher finds a mark and logs it before I do. I encourage other cachers to find marks, but I sometimes overlook marks that others have found.